Religion IV: Deus vult!

[Ramsay Gimp]

Oh, I get it. It's not really every day. So Christianity isn't as bad, because Christians only bomb things occasionally.

Sure, you might not have a bias for Christianity, because you're a FREETHINKER YO, but like Gears you definitely have a bias against Islam, and watching you two high-five each other over it is kind of nauseating.

Are you are seriously arguing that Christianity is "as bad" as Islam when it comes to terrorism? If so, why should anyone take you seriously?

I admit that I have a bias against whichever religion causes the most suffering, sure. As should you.

[Wise Fool]

Ser Scot - but that's just it, you say "not all Islam." Others might not bother with that distinction, however minor it is, and I am not talking about 'bias' against a particular organization or institution but against "Islam."

Are you are seriously arguing that Christianity is "as bad" as Islam when it comes to terrorism? If so, why should anyone take you seriously?

I admit that I have a bias against whichever religion causes the most suffering, sure. As should you.

To your first question: are you seriously arguing that since Christians don't all bomb abortion clinics every day, Christianity is better than Islam? Or was that just a bit of slap-happy meaningless sarcasm not meant to be taken as the strawman argument it nonetheless seemed?

To be sure, your last sentence sounds all very pleasant, veritably Buddhist; nobody can reasonably argue in favor of suffering. Where I take issue with your bias is when you broadly assume that Islam causes the most suffering and that therefore it's an evil religion. Frankly, I've always found that religious bigotry in general is odious and insulting, and that includes bigotry against as much as it does bigotry for. That aside, whether something like "a religion" winds up "causing" human behaviors is something that's not a given either, and people who generally tend to think it can (and does) also tend to do so not merely to ascribe agency to a particular religion, but blame. And then it's all about why that religion sucks and must be eradicated and suddenly I'm not feeling that Buddha-like compassion and concern for suffering anymore.

[Ramsay Gimp]

To your first question: are you seriously arguing that since Christians don't all bomb abortion clinics every day, Christianity is better than Islam? Or was that just a bit of slap-happy meaningless sarcasm not meant to be taken as the strawman argument it nonetheless seemed?

Yes, essentially. That example was meant to mock the arguments you and many others make when defending Islam, but I stand behind the underlying point: looked at objectively, 21st-century Islam is much more dangerous and problematic than 21st-century Christianity. The scale and severity of Islamist terror dwarfs that of Christianist terror.

That isn't to say Muslims are more violent. Most Muslims are peaceful and there are plenty of violent Christians. But when comparing violence and oppression done in the name of religion, it's not even close. There are a number of historical reasons for the disparity, and there have been historical periods where Christianity was "worse" than Islam. But that is not the case today.

To be sure, your last sentence sounds all very pleasant, veritably Buddhist; nobody can reasonably argue in favor of suffering. Where I take issue with your bias is when you broadly assume that Islam causes the most suffering and that therefore it's an evil religion. Frankly, I've always found that religious bigotry in general is odious and insulting, and that includes bigotry against as much as it does bigotry for. That aside, whether something like "a religion" winds up "causing" human behaviors is something that's not a given either, and people who generally tend to think it can (and does) also tend to do so not merely to ascribe agency to a particular religion, but blame. And then it's all about why that religion sucks and must be eradicated and suddenly I'm not feeling that Buddha-like compassion and concern for suffering anymore.

Criticizing or even attacking a religion is not the same as attacking a race, gender, sexuality, etc. You can throw out the term "bigotry" all you want, but religions are belief systems. They present an ideology and proscribe actions. Arguing that a religion is dangerous and harmful to humanity is no different than saying the same for a political ideology. Are you bigoted if you condemn National Socialism, the Republican Party, or Libertarianism? Of course not.

What's really odious is the knee-jerk impulse of left-liberals to equate the harmful impact of all religions today, as well as their attempt to separate beliefs from actions. What reason do you have to not take ISIS or Al Qaeda at their word when they say they are motivated by their faith?

Finally, don't worry, I'm not interested in eradicating anybody. I'm certainly against any military involvement.

[Darzin]

Hmmm, the question would then be are people sexist in the name of Hinduism?

I don'y know are they? I don't know a lot about Indian Culture or Hinduism.I know in Central Asia most of the sexism I encountered was more cultural than religious. IE it wasn't justified in the name of Islam ,more this is how it's done here, or this is how our family does it.

It's all in how you say it Ramsey, but I dislike your broad brush. If you say Islam has a problem with Salafism and that leads to violence I wouldn't disagree. It just seems to me saying Islam is the problem is not a good answer, because it forces people to choose between their religion or western values. Better to single out the denominations causing all this violence no?

[Jo498]

This is mainly because our western religion is not predominantly christianity, but rather "democracy", "free trade", "human rights", "homeland security" in the name of which we wage our current wars. We are killing far more muslims by our invasions, drone strikes etc. than muslim terrorists killed Westerners. (Although I am not sure about muslims and other Easterners killed by muslims of a slightly different persuasion.)

Does that imply that democracy and free trade imply violence? Or are these concepts not used in a similar fashion to religions as pretext for power and interests of small powerful groups?

Strategically, it is clear to me that the West cannot pacify and stabilize the middle east if we generally condemn Islam as a violent and repressive religion. We obviously need all the help we can get from non-radical muslims (while actually our policies tend to produce more radical ones).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Darzin,

I specfically mention Daesh and Islamic Extremists not Islam generally. How is my brush too broad?

[The Marquis de Leech]

The difficulty with analysing Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and their relationship to violence and oppression is that the whole thing is so tied up with politics, history, and economics, it becomes less about the belief system and more about the society the belief system is being applied in.

On paper, Islam is actually much less radical than Christianity. Being a good Muslim involves observing rituals, giving alms to the poor, and so on. Being a good Christian (at least as defined in the actual texts) involves giving everything to the poor: rather than a bunch of pious middle-class merchants, it involves social upheaval. But of course, it never quite worked out like that.

Basically, religion is complicated.

[Darzin]

Darzin,

I specfically mention Daesh and Islamic Extrimists not Islam generally. How is my brush too broad?

Sorry Scot I misread your comment as saying Islam supports these things, I edited my comment to reflect this.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Darzin,

Thanks. :)

[Gears of the Beast]

The difficulty with analysing Christianity, Islam, and Judaism and their relationship to violence and oppression is that the whole thing is so tied up with politics, history, and economics, it becomes less about the belief system and more about the society the belief system is being applied in.

On paper, Islam is actually much less radical than Christianity. Being a good Muslim involves observing rituals, giving alms to the poor, and so on. Being a good Christian (at least as defined in the actual texts) involves giving everything to the poor: rather than a bunch of pious middle-class merchants, it involves social upheaval. But of course, it never quite worked out like that.

Basically, religion is complicated.

Bold part is 100% spot on. However, it doesn't contradict the fact that many violent and sexist positions are advocated in the qur'an which has lead to widespread acceptance of these positions among Muslims (apostasy = death etc etc). I'm not so quick to conclude that it's more about the society than the belief system. It gets pretty muddy when we start to talk about that because the religion has been part of the society for so long it has clearly shaped what it is today significantly. I don't think they can be separated that easily.

[Darzin]

No that's true the Qur'an can be read incredibly violently or not depending on how you read it cherry picking and all that pagans especially get a short thrift it's just there aren't so many of those anymore. It does have some hard to get around edicts about how non combatants are to be treated, but thanks to some amazing intellectual gymnastics by Sa'id Qutb, from whose writings most strains of modern jihadism draw on, everyone can be considered a combatant. A huge portion of the problems in modern Islam can be traced to him as well as the Saudi family ruling over a very economically and religiously important location.

If we look at Shi'ism though we can see that following the Qur'an does not necessarily lead to terrorism though it's a strand of thought more particular to Sunni Islam. Also Iran is more progressive in some ways than people think, in that it's probably easier for the average woman in Iran to get a divorce than it was for a woman in the US in the 1970's.

[Sci-2]

No that's true the Qur'an can be read incredibly violently or not depending on how you read it cherry picking and all that pagans especially get a short thrift it's just there aren't so many of those anymore.

Well....

Why Does ISIS Consider the Yazidi ‘Devil Worshippers’?

Really, once you have a hell the spiritual Nazism of that concept seem to justify everything and anything. (Not that reincarnation has made India a shining bastion of human rights.)

Why I don't think it's fair to just say ISIS/Daesh is bad without examining the degree to which religious think[ing] affects all cultural motivations. (And again, it does good things too. But ideally there's a way to separate the gold of religion from the dross.)

[Darzin]

Well the Yazidi kind of are devil worshipers, they just believe the knowledge of good and evil is a good thing so people can choose good. And also that Taus Melek's tears closed hell, I find their philosophy really interesting it's weird that they don't allow converts though.

[Gears of the Beast]

Ah yes, Shi'a Islam is just great. Who was it again that issued the fatwa on Salman Rushdie and anyone involved in the publication of his book? That is most certainly terrorism. And don't try to pathetically trivialise the suffering of untold Iranian women by saying "oh but look it's not that hard for them to get divorced". Shall we have a look at the gender discrimination in Iran?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

GotB,

You say that as though Islam, Shia Islam, and Sunni Islam are somehow each untiary without significant debate over what makes each what it is. To damn any one part for the actions of the extremists within it is fallacious.

Because some of a group are extreme it does not follow all of that group must be equally extreme. Particularly in a faith with no formal heirarchy to determine what is and is not properly "Islamic". Any "learned man" can call themself an "Imam".

[Larry of the Lawn]

Whoever invented the concept of hell must have been laughing all the way to the many banks he or she owned.

[Gears of the Beast]

Khomeini was essentially the spiritual leader of Shi'a Islam. He was the supreme leader of Iran. To act like he's some random extremist is absurd. You people keep acting like I'm using small extreme groups to categorise Islam. This isn't true. The vast majority of Muslims believe apostasy should be punished by death, the majority of Muslims in most Islamic countries believe female adulterers and homosexuals should be killed. Yusuf al-Qaradawi is an Islamic theologian and chairman of the International Union of Muslim Scholars, he has a TV audience of 60,000,000 and he supports suicide bombing attacks on Israeli civilians including women and children. I'm saying Islam has a serious problem with violence and the oppression of women and homosexuals etc. To say otherwise is dishonest. To say that 'not everyone supports this view of Islam' is not to say that this problem doesn't exist. Go read about what Islamic leaders of countries such as Saudi Arabia and Iran think about homosexuality and do to homosexuals, it is repugnant and people like that cannot co-exist with civilisation. I'm not and never have been talking about a couple of extremist sects.

[Sci-2]

Well the Yazidi kind of are devil worshipers, they just believe the knowledge of good and evil is a good thing so people can choose good. And also that Taus Melek's tears closed hell, I find their philosophy really interesting it's weird that they don't allow converts though.

But they don't seem to have a fallen angel, so from their perspective they aren't worshiping a devil. Similarly, Gnostics would say worshipers of Yaweh are worshiping a demonic false god whose pretense at being the One is obvious:

God's 12 Biggest Dick Moves in the Old Testament

Whoever invented the concept of hell must have been laughing all the way to the many banks he or she owned.

It's amazing that in modern times people are deluded enough to claim they won the Belief Lottery and deserve salvation for faith in their particular ticket. The rationalizations for why Hell is justified for unbelievers would make Nazi apologists blush.

[Stubby]

It's amazing that in modern times people are deluded enough to claim they won the Belief Lottery and deserve salvation for faith in their particular ticket. The rationalizations for why Hell is justified for unbelievers would make Nazi apologists blush.

That's always been one of my biggest criticisms of Pascal's Wager. What if one of those alernative tickets (nice usage that ;) ) is actually real and you've backed the wrong one? As nearly all of them have some sort of idea that backing the wrong ticket gives you an express ride "down" it's a silly bet overall.

[The Marquis de Leech]

That's always been one of my biggest criticisms of Pascal's Wager. What if one of those alernative tickets (nice usage that ;) ) is actually real and you've backed the wrong one? As nearly all of them have some sort of idea that backing the wrong ticket gives you an express ride "down" it's a silly bet overall.

My biggest problem with Pascal's Wager is that it requires God to be a moron.